Framing: Cure-all or Hype? Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Framing--the art of effectively using language as political rhetoric--has garnered new interest with last Sunday's NYT magazine cover story by Matt Bai.  While the article pointed out the Republicans' successes and the Democratic steep learning curve--this desire to understand a cognitive linguistic perspective has been helpful for liberals.

Much of what Lakoff writes is ponderous, and politics is often uncontrollable,  DNA coded telegenic appearance or the economy, for example.  But framing shouldn't be seen as a simple recipe .  Rather, framing is a technique...done well it provides the alchemy between ideas and politics.  In academia this is similar to the tension between theory and practice--each one informs the other and the key to successful influence is how the relationship between them is organized.

Liberals like lots of data, but don't spend as much energy on conveying ideas.  Our problem is not one of analysis (facts) but of synthesis (marketing).  Conservatives have built a rhetorical empire with marketing. As many have noted elsewhere, the truth behind the ideas is often not important.  So now our government is being run by a bunch of right-wing Toastmasters--thirty years in the making--while we've been yukking it up at wine bars and over sprocket spewing PHD dissertations.   The liberal challenge is not unfixable, but it will take a plan and some time. The framing discussion has jump started this process.  This is good.

Examples from the trenches:

One of the reasons Lakoff's instruction has been so helpful for Democrats is that it gave their problem a name.  Being able to talk about what is happening is empowering.  In psychology, this technique is called  "naming the behavior" and in itself provides a helpful way to move a discussion forward into a new frame.  When I was a court mediator one of the lines I oftened used with litigants was "may I share an impression with you?" I would then--given their permission-- point out how we were jointly botching the prospects for a fair dialogue and possible common agreements. It was remarkably successful in jolting the conversation back to a more balanced terrain.  It seems like this type of verbal intervention could be very helpful for liberals--whose comfort zone includes unashamed appeals to the common good and the public interest.

Back to Lakoff. After election 04, the Dems had him out more than once for intensive sessions on framing techniques.  I remember a conversation I had with a Democratic staffer last February--after one of these sessions.  She told me that her boss--brimming with inspiration--had assigned Lakoff's book "Don't Think of an Elephant" to all the office staff.  A great intention, but very few Hill staff have the time and energy to read something that doesn't directly relate to constituents or immediate duties.  So the conversation stopped right there. 

Contrast this with the zillion follow-up opportunities for conservative staff --outsourced to their institutional ecosystem: yoda-like mentoring, communications training, practical internships, philosophical education and, finally JOBS! Now, why can't the DNC create follow-up tracks, organized regionally for relevant themes and content--for all liberal Hill staff? Cognitive Linguists could be on hand but the real value would be shoring up relationships and building communications skills.

Liberal Hill staff are a highly underutilized resource. They aren't systematically kept in a system that builds ideas and frameworks for understanding them. To my mind, Hill staff make great translators between theory and practice...as they have spent time massaging the relationship between ideas and politics. ( My favorite staff and Members are those idealists who have been knee-capped by the process.  They mend their worldview and become pragmatic dreamers. The best kind of leaders.)

Consider this hypothetical: If the minority leader had been a conservative and lost his election last November, a gaggle of fellow believers, funders, elected officials and movement operatives would have chartered a new "non partisan" think tank down on MacPherson Square and exported the staff there.  In contrast,  we lose our people to the four winds.

National Security is an issue area ripe for reframing. One present challenge for liberals is to stop the Bush administration's absconding with the Grand Strategy of  Democracy.

As Jonathan Chait notes in his excellent article "The Case Against New Ideas":

The idea of spreading democracy may be a powerful one, but we shouldn't forget that it's an adhoc rationale for the Iraq war--hastily put forward after Bush's primary justification, weapons of mass destruction, fell apart.  If Bush believed in democracy-promotion as a central goal of the war, he didn't trust the public enough to make that argument.

Well, now the public no longer trusts the president.  This is a good opening for liberals to step in and take back this issue. What to do in Iraq presents a case study for reframing democracy as a Grand Strategy.

Americans recognize that the use of military force is not the only or the best way to help create a stable, democratic, and prosperous Iraq.  But by the same token, they are not convinced that the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq will solve the problems there.  Advocacy that focuses on bringing the troops home may fail to engage or galvanize this “persuadable middle” of the public precisely because these Americans intuitively understand that the military dimensions of the challenge in Iraq are only part of the picture.  Like most Americans, they want to do what’s right in Iraq, and they mistrust policy proposals that seem to treat troop withdrawal as an end in itself, without paying sufficient attention to the larger context.

Liberals threaten to divide into two camps: "out now" and "stay the course".  This is a false division.

The United States needs a comprehensive, creative strategy and the support of other nations if progress is to be made on key political, economic, and security aspects of rebuilding Iraq.   In contrast to today’s failed policies, the new strategy must be farsighted and collaborative; it must unfold on multiple, interconnected tracks that account for the complexity of peacebuilding and post-conflict reconstruction; it must rely on a full range of tools, not just military force; and it must enable American troops ultimately to withdraw without fear of destabilizing the new Iraqi state.  How can advocates communicate most effectively with the American public and policymakers about such an approach to U.S. engagement in Iraq?  What ideas and stories, messages and messengers might advocates employ to engage the “persuadable middle” of the American public in a new national dialogue about Iraq – a dialogue that includes but is not limited to strategies for phasing out our military presence there?  What ideas and messages might enlarge the space for debate about this highly charged set of issues, so more people are invited into the discussion and a broader public consensus can be created around responsible and effective American policies?

Comments

[Cal]

Gen. McCaffrey has said that we need to start leaving by the fall of next year if we want to prevent a "meltdown" of the army. Most 'out now' people -- including myself -- would accept this. If we can't bring minimal stability to the country by then we never will.

[Alex]

As a former Democrat turned Republican in 2004 (first time I ever voted Republican in my life), the Democrats need to stop kidding themselves that they have the facts and not the marketing. In my book, and admitedly, it is only my view, the Democrats need to understand why their facts might be wrong before they start worrying about marketing. If the "reality community", continues to use the same facts they have for the last 30 years without understanding that the product may not be salable anymore, I'll probably be voting Republican for the foreseable future and that would make for a sad state of affairs.

[rosignol]

The idea of spreading democracy may be a powerful one, but we shouldn't forget that it's an adhoc rationale for the Iraq war--hastily put forward after Bush's primary justification, weapons of mass destruction, fell apart. If Bush believed in democracy-promotion as a central goal of the war, he didn't trust the public enough to make that argument.

I disagree with this. IMO, the emphasis on WMDs was largely due to the effort to get UN approval and provide diplomatic cover for our allies, primarily Britain. Going to the UN and saying "WMDs" and going to the electorate and saying "spread democracy" would have resulted in the UN saying no.

Bush had won the election and gotten Congressional approval to use force early on. It wasn't legally necessary to get any more approval from the electorate, or their representatives. But he did want approval from the UN, and the UN doesn't think promoting democracy is sufficient justification for military action. So he had to base his case on WMDs and Saddam's defiance of UNSC resolutions.

[rosignol]

ps: it's not just you, Alex. Lots of other people are exactly where you are.

[Mikey]

I agree with Alex and, as rosignol points out, he's not alone. I'm also a life-long Dem who voted GOP for the first time in 2004. While a lot of Dems are policy wonks, to be sure, it's a fabrication to characterize our main problem as a lack of marketing skills. This myth of ourselves as a party of better solutions but no ability to sell them is, in itself, a great example of "framing" and we've been doing it for too long to document fully here. But I will say that Dems who can see that "Compassionate Conservativism" is a framing technique but fail to recognize "Planned Parenthood" as the same thing only live in the "half-of-reality"-based community. That we accept our own "frames" as facts without questioning them (or worse, *congratulating* ourselves for them) is a serious problem because it hinders our ability, and our incentive, to develop new solutions that will work. It's time for our party to look in the mirror, not grasp for new gimmicks.

[Caitlyn Antrim]

I think it is too limiting to think of "Framing" as "Marketing". Developing a new frame is a process of development, interaction and revision, one that requires informed participants who value the process of developing not only pragmatic proposals but developing wide public support. For the republicans, this has been facilitated by large and small think tanks and idea centers and by prominent individuals who develop ideas, incorporate ideas from others and hone their message to increase its support in larger and larger audiences. What people and groups fill this role for the democrats/progressives do not have the critical mass to draw the interest and participation of politicians, practitioners, intellectuals and analysts in creating the next transformation of concepts for goals and practice of international affairs.

Democrats still carry an expectation that they are responsible for good government and rational policy, even though they have been shut out of responsibility for running the government. This is understandable since our mentors came from an era when that was appropriate. But now, and pretty much since Reagan's second term, we have to think more about how to change the view of issues and interests while simultaneously developing policies that are best suited for an international system that has made striking changes over the past 30 years with a citizenry that has grown up during the era of republican political dominance.

It takes inspiring ideas and leaders to foster political transformations. Good governance and rational policy are important ideas, but they aren't inspiring. Politicians and the political parties are not the place where inspiring ideas are born or developed. These ideas need to be developed on the border between pragmatic politics and intellectual thought. To many, this role seems neither fish nor fowl and appears to have a lack of commitment to either ideas or to people and party, But it is the area in which transformational concepts are converted into inspiring proposals, and it is the area in which Republicans have been far more committed and effective.

[chaos7023]

For the Dems who voted Republican in 04, what, in your opinion, are the facts that Dems don't get? I'm curious about what swayed you.

[Lorelei Kelly]

I am too. Please comment on what facts were wrong. Thanks for the feedback. All very helpful.

[Stygius]

Nice post, especially on the need for building a better network architecture to let ideas ferment and -- ultimately -- frame themselves. I'm suspicious of the latest idea fad. There is a tendency to fall in love with the latest trendy lingo and substitute talking in the trendy lingo for actual strategy. Democrats don't do gurus. If framing really is concerned with cycles of "revision," then such a healthy fallibilism will include not bowing down to framing itself.

Whether it is "framing," or "branding," or "story-telling," it all boils down to the same thing -- having better ideas, and having a better grasp of the idiom in which to communicate them.

I also think your point on a public suspicious of a Withdraw Now imperative is spot on. Iraq is now a failed state. Granted we made it that way, but it is in failed states that terrorism dwells. Leaving it to its own devices is a concession to terrorism the US pay for for decades.

[Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg]

I think it's important to remember that it's not just Hill Liberals who are lacking viable long term career tracks; otuside of workign on a candidate campaign or in a single-issue org. there's almost no way for a young progressive to push forward in a political career anywhere in the nation. Not that those two activities aren't worthwhile, but what I find distressing is that there is little to no connection within these groups to the larger progressive movements and ideas.

As far as taking on the National Security dilemas of Democrats I think that a few things need to be done. First- Democrats need to adopt a few select national security experts, who may or may not be Dems themselves but who have serious problems with Bush & Co., and promote the hell out of their ideas. For example, Larry C. Johnson and Patrick Lang over at No Quarter, give great reasons for opposing Bush while also pushing a viable "third" option.

Second- we need to convince some of these leaders to run for public office as Dems, which may be difficuly given that many of them will have been lifelong Republicans and/or are currently Gov't employees. I obviously have one candidate in my mind (cough-Antohny-cough-Zinni-cough) who I'd love to see run, but I'm sure that there are many, many out there who could run, and win, at different levels of electoral politics. For example, Paul Hackett's campaign in OH has potential to reframe our and the Republican image (us of and for the people and them of and for corruption, intolerance, and religious extremism). I'd also love to see some of the great guys over at OpTruth drafted to run for offices, but I think most are still active duty.

Third- once we get some Hacketts into Congress we have to put them in highly visible positions and get them in front of the cameras as often as possible.